Featured Authors

Deborah Haarsma serves as the President of BioLogos, a position she has held since January 2013. Previously, she served as professor and chair in the Department of Physics and Astronomy at Calvin College in Grand Rapids, Michigan.

N.T. Wright is a leading biblical scholar, former Bishop of Durham in the Church of England, and current Research Professor of New Testament and Early Christianity at St. Mary's College in the University of St. Andrews.

No, Modern Science is Not “Catching Up” to the Bible

The chart above has been floating around social media for the past couple of months, and it recently appeared in my Facebook news feed. In trying to track it down via Google, I found many sites reposting it under the title “Modern Science is Catching Up to the Bible”. For many Christians who feel beaten down by atheist voices ridiculing the Bible as an ancient relic, this chart presses all the right buttons. I totally get this. One of the reasons I found young-earth creationism (YEC) so captivating in my childhood is that these sorts of “science prophecies” in the Bible gave me a thrilling sense of confidence and certainty in my faith. If the Bible, written thousands of years before modern science, contained scientific information that the authors could not possibly have known without divine revelation, then surely it was a supernatural book that could be trusted as God’s Word.

In middle school, I became an old-earth creationist (OEC) under the influence of Hugh Ross. The OEC interpretation of the Bible has even more science prophecies than the YEC perspective. Now, the Big Bang, the expansion of the universe, and many more modern scientific discoveries were all found in the pages of the Bible.

At the time, moving from young-earth to old-earth creationism felt like a large leap. In retrospect, I now realize that these two positions share an extremely similar approach to biblical authority and interpretation. They disagree on what “science” the Bible reveals, but they agree that the Bible is full of science prophecies that can be used to convince skeptics of the Bible’s authority. Both YEC and OEC ascribe to a viewpoint that Christian scientist and writer Richard H. Bube calls “arbitrary inerrancy”. In 1963, Bube wrote an influential essay for the American Scientific Affiliation (an association of evangelical Christian scientists) defending it against claims that members of the ASA were abandoning the Bible’s authority by accepting the findings of modern science. Bube’s words are just as relevant, 50 years later:

If it is assumed, without due Scriptural support, that the purpose of revelation is to give mankind a source-book of information on all phases of physical, mental, spiritual, sociological, artistic, and scientific life—a source-book which must have meaning for the people to whom it was addressed and to all the generations coming after them in spite of the changes which are continuously occurring—then we have the greatest difficulty in maintaining the doctrine of an inerrant Scripture. If, on this stand, we adopt the position of "arbitrary inerrancy," we essentially jeopardize the whole truth of Christianity by attempting to balance the great wealth and weight of God's revelation in Christ upon our ability to show that the words of Scripture can be judged inerrant even when we examine them on the basis of criteria they were not written to satisfy. How much of liberalism and rejection of Biblical revelation has been precipitated as a blind reaction against such a stand!

To understand Bube’s point, imagine a Christian sharing the chart above on Facebook with a non-Christian skeptic. This skeptic is intrigued, and begins to do some of her own research on the context of the biblical references in the chart. What she will discover is that, in every single one of the cases above, these so-called revelations of modern science are based on a barest of biblical evidence. In every case, they are plucked entirely out of context and turned into atomized truth nuggets. There is little evidence that the writer of Job actually meant to talk about astronomy, or that the writer of Hebrews was in any way addressing modern atomic theory. These meanings are imposed upon the text by Christians who, under the influence of the “arbitrary inerrancy” view, assume such information must be there.

A little help from Google will uncover an enormous library of articles by skeptics who have discovered hundreds of scientifically incorrect statements all over the Bible. Of course, when this skeptic confronts the Christian with this evidence, the Christian might respond that the Bible doesn’t really mean to say that our thoughts and emotions come from our kidneys (Psalm 16:7) or the sky is made of a hard, bronze-like substance (Job 37:18), or...or...or... But the skeptic will rightly see this as an entirely arbitrary approach to the Bible, in which the Bible predicts modern science whenever we can contrive a correct prediction, but when it seems to be at odds with modern science, suddenly that’s just poetry. The Christian has set up a standard for biblical authority under which the Bible cannot deliver. The net result isn’t a defense of the Bible, but instead an invitation for scorn and further unbelief.

How did we get to a place where it’s an embarrassment for the Bible—written by ancient people for an ancient audience—to reflect the ancient scientific mindset? In short, I think it’s because we’ve set up a false dichotomy between the Bible’s truth and its humanity. If God chose to communicate through and to ordinary people in real human cultures, then we should expect the Bible be written in such a way that reflects the cultural mindset of its original context. Here’s how Pete Enns puts it:

The Bible...was an not an abstract, otherworldly book, dropped out of heaven. It was connected to and therefore spoke to those ancient cultures. The encultured qualities of the Bible, therefore, are not extra elements that we can discard to get to the real point, the timeless truths.[1]

This isn’t to say that Bible is “merely” a product of its culture, or that it ceases to say anything beyond its original context. It’s simply to clarify what sort of revelation the Bible provides. Let’s say, hypothetically, that God had revealed himself to the ancient Chinese people, some of whom thought the world rested on the back of a giant tortoise (that’s what the chart above means by “Earth sat on a large animal”). And then God inspires a certain Chinese person to write, “God has set the world firmly on the back of the turtle; it shall not be moved” (see Psalms 104:5). Can that statement still be God’s Word, even though it references an inaccurate picture of the world? Certainly! The inspired revelation in this statement has nothing to do with a turtle, and everything to do with God’s faithfulness. The turtle is part of the cultural framework which allows the revelation to make sense to the people who first said it! The same is true of the “ancient science” in the Bible. It can’t be used as a weapon against the authority of God’s Word, because it has nothing to do with what the Bible is ultimately trying to communicate.[2]

Someone might also object that, since the Old Testament writers spoke of Christ without consciously understanding that they were doing so, then God could have certainly inspired them to write modern scientific discoveries into the text as well. Of course, the original context of the Old Testament should not be the only factor in determining what the texts mean. Christian tradition (starting with the New Testament authors) indeed sees a “progressive revelation” of Christ in the Old Testament.

But this is exactly the point. For Christians, the purpose of the entire Bible is first and foremost to reveal Christ. Therefore, it ultimately draws its authority from the fact that it truly speaks of God and his Son. Suggesting that the Bible’s authority rests on its scientific accuracy adds an artificial middleman to this chain of authority, wherein the Bible first speaks truly of science, and therefore is trusted to speak truly of Christ. As Bube argues, this is not only unscriptural but ultimately damaging to the Christian witness.

To summarize, a robust view of the authority of the Bible must begin with a clear understanding of and appreciation for the way in which God has chosen to communicate his message. As Old Testament scholar Kyle Greenwood, says, “a high view of the Bible employs a hermeneutic that accommodates the biblical writers’ immersion in their ancient, pre-Enlightenment cultural context.”[3] Greenwood’s new book, Scripture and Cosmology: Reading the Bible Between the Ancient World and Modern Science, is an amazing resource on the fascinating pre-modern context in which the Bible was written. Greenwood explains how understanding this context—”ancient science” and all—actually aids us in applying God’s Word faithfully in our modern scientific times. Read the rest of this series for an in-depth look at his book.

Notes

Citations

Kramer, B. (2018, January 24). No, Modern Science is Not “Catching Up” to the Bible Retrieved March 19, 2018, from /blogs/brad-kramer-the-evolving-evangelical/no-modern-science-is-not-catching-up-to-the-bible

References & Credits

[1] Pete Enns, Inspiration and Incarnation: Evangelicals and the Problem of the Old Testament. p.18. Emphasis in original. Enns (a former BioLogos Fellow of Biblical Studies) has a lot of great articles in the BioLogos archive on these topics. I’ve linked to some in the sidebar.

[2] I am fully aware that saying “the Bible is not a science book” doesn’t solve all the issues, because the Bible does narrate a sacred history, and history and science do overlap on questions of origins. I’ll address this more explicitly in further posts.

About the Author

Brad Kramer is the BioLogos managing editor. He completed his M.Div. at Biblical Theological Seminary in Pennsylvania and earned a BA in politics, philosophy, and economics from The King’s College in New York City. His articles have appeared in The Daily Beast, Patrol, and OnFaith.

"What kind of evidence would somebody need to have in order to be rationally compelled to say that an event was a miracle? That person would have to know that this event could not possibly be explained by future science. But not only is such a belief unwarranted, it’s also bad for future science to believe it."

These provocative words are written by Princeton philosopher Hans Halvorson (a Christian), in an article that itself provoked some good discussion when we posted it last week.

Check out the full article (link in comments), and then respond to the quote above. Does calling something a "miracle" put it in danger of being debunked by future scientific advances? Is there a different way of thinking about the concept of a miracle, that might satisfy his concerns? Feel free to discuss below. ... See moreSee less

Hard for me to see that the Incarnation is not a miracle. For others , God could be working on a quantum level?? But does the latter fall into”God of the Gaps?”

5 hours ago · 1

Amen🌀 Jesus doesn't care about Alabama Crimson Tide 🏈 football. Instead, He loves 🌀 Spring and the start of ⚾ baseball season. That's why He started His own story, "In the Big inning..." Just watch 🌀 His wind-up! You need to start reading your 📖 Bible!

3 hours ago

One thing for sure, it is more a philosophical question than a religious one.

7 hours ago · 2

Great article. In answer to you question about a different way of thinking about miracles that would "satisfy his concern", to me it would make sense to explain a miracle in terms of something that everyone (religious and non-religious alike) would have no explanation for, given our current understanding of science.

Science will never describe the full expanse of reality. Science is not geared to that end. This is basic knowledge.
Reason is the handmaiden of faith because faith takes us where reason cannot go. As such, the only thing that will ever describe the fill expanse of reality is faith supernaturally given by God, i.e. God graciously enlightening the intellect. Reason gives way to faith because reason is limited in its capacity to describe reality.
This is not to say reason is not essential. It is the handmaiden of faith because it is a true and good servant to faith. As such faith and reason never contradict, but faith does transcend reason.

10 hours ago · 5

I'm tired of these types of questions constantly being proposed. It was not a scientist who discovered that dead human beings do not rise from the dead (which is different than Jesus resurrection) it was simple human experience. Therefore, the question is rather silly to ask. My first reply is to ask: who cares if Jesus resurrection contradicts science? My second reply is to make the observation that this question is phrased in such a way that science is presupposed as the final arbiter of truth claims like the resurrection of Jesus. Thirdly, how exactly could scientists study the resurrection of Jesus? Scripture tells us that God raised Jesus from the dead. Can science study this claim? Fourth, it would be one thing to subject the resurrection to some sort of scientific investigation ( I know not what or how) and a completely different thing to study what the resurrection of Jesus means for me or you personally. It seems Biologos is in need of some good theologians and philosophers to add to this conversation. Finally, this question smacks of a form of Evidentialism that would make faith subject to the vagarities of evidence. In the end I have to affirm that it matters little to me if the resurrection of Jesus did contradict science. On another note, one could ask: whose "science" and which scientists?

3 hours ago · 1

Exactly so.

11 hours ago · 1

Mmmmmm, I would say that a resurrection is contradictory to observed evidence, but that's fine. A God that is truly supernatural would act supernaturally at times. Although, I suppose God could whip up a truly natural Star Trek hypospray to overcome the decay process and relaunch the body's systems.